#in the context of a show written about the 80s in not the 80s

[sendmyresignation]

Rlly curious if you’re willing to elaborate on your tags in that senseless post!

omg of course. perfacing by saying im not. a huge movie buff so this is more of a theoretical thesis that could easily change if i watch any film made past like 1987. but. in my experience metalheads aren't protagonists in the same way punks are. rarely are they main characters at all- the exception being rocksplotation horror movies which, the ones i have watched are very tongue and cheek and are made mostly with the audience of metalheads in mind. imo. or there's fakeumentaries like spinal tap which also are unserious but still like. metalheads love that shit the jokes are funnier when you are In On It. and then ig bill and tedd are metalheads?? ive never seen it. and waynes world. but that's the thing they aren't All Dressed Up in The Outfit it's a secondary part of their loserdom or stonerisms, it's not representative of anything on particular its just a detail which allows for headbanging car scenes and dialogue name drops.

punks, on the other hand. are a very visually arresting subculture at the same time they have lot of thematic possibility so you see punks as significant characters more, dressed up a lot more, in my experience. the whole nine yards with piercings and the vests and shit. and that archetype is filled with potential- they're a vehicle for disillusionment by older counterculture writers to discuss the disingenuous nature of suburban punks and their fake, childish radicalism, they're a tool for bitter old directors to hold up a deterioration of society, they're truth tellers, they're wastoids, they're hot, they're dangerous- they can represent a lot and you don't have to be invested in punk to utilize that archetype ripe for exploring. metalheads just don't have the same potency, unless you factor in the devil

in the end this is mostly negative, you don't see a lot of incredibly human portrayals of punks. and for as cheesy as metalhead horror fests are, they are attempting a kind of realism for being a outcast loser the average nonrockstar was i can respect. idk it's an interesting dichotomy! and makes me think i need to watch more shit short films.

[un-pearable]

no offense but i think when critiquing jay’s (and let’s be real all of the OG four ninja’s) behavior in the pilots and early seasons, a lot of people ignore that the cultural context and attitude about misogyny and especially misogyny in children’s media is VERY different today than it was in the late 2000s/early 2010s

[serialgirlposter]

Love when i look something up and find a fucked up wikipedia entry about it

[paragonrobits]

some important calvin and hobbes facts in case you haven't read the original comic strip in a long time or only absorbed stuff on it from memes and out of context bits on here:

Calvin's last name has never been given, and neither has any of his parent's names. This was actually why his uncle Max only showed up for a brief storyline; the creator of the comic, Bill Watterson, ultimately felt that while it was fine to have him as someone for his parents to talk to, it felt far too awkward to never have Max refer to them by name and he never made a return appearance.

The general tone of the comic is fairly light-hearted, with a big emphasis on goofy slapstick comedy contrasted by clever wordplay and often surprising adult-centered jokes that'll hit you like a slap. A big part of the comedy is, as Watterson put it (paraphrased) "It's really funny to me when people express deeply stupid ideas with really fancy terminology." One notable example you might have seen is that one bit where Calvin asks his mom for money to buy a Satan-worshiping rock album and his mom replies that there's nothing genuine about them and they're just putting on the attitude for shock value, and comisserates with Calvin as he deplores that mainstream nihilism can't be trusted. He concludes that childhood is disillusioning.

There is a LOT of criticism of the extreme materialism and selfish mentality of the late 80s, when the comic was initially written. This may go a long way to explain how its aged so well; much of what it criticizes resonates well with people today.

Bill Watterson views comic strips a legitimate form of artwork, and repeatedly fought to have more space to draw more beautiful and artistic backgrounds, which was a very hard fight and unpopular even with other comic strip artists. He eventually did win some compromises and a lot of Calvin And Hobbes' artwork shows it, with the use of space to indicate time as well as a sharp contrast between the often plain environments of mundane life contrasted by the wildly beautiful imagery of Calvin's imagination (which often sports realistic depictions in an art shift of sorts).

Hobbes is explicitly not an imaginary friend, by word of Watterson himself. We don't know WHAT he is exactly, and Hobbes is apparently unaware of the strange nature of his reality; people look at him and only see an ordinary stuffed tiger plushie, but he has a tangible effect on the world that would be physically impossible for Calvin to do on his own. He's apparently been around for a while, and was apparently around when Calvin was a young baby.

On that note; Hobbes has implicitly killed (notably treated as both a gag and also with the vibe of 'he's a tiger, duh') and while he doesn't do it again on-screen, he doesn't have any moral issues about it. Calvin claims that he's never had trouble bringing Hobbes to school because the last time he did, Hobbes killed and ate a bully named Tommy Chestnut and simply comments that it was gross and he needed a bath. Calvin's tried to repeat this again, but Hobbes was grossed out at the thought having to eat a kid raw and not being allowed to use an oven first, or complaining that children are too fattening.

Hobbes became gradually less human-like in body language and more like an actual cat in both body language and behavior; this was due to Watterson drawing more inspiration from his cat, who also inspired a lot of Hobbes' running gags, such as pouncing on Calvin when he got home. Several years into the syndication of the strip, Watterson's cat passed away, and he did a tribute to her with a comic strip of the two of them agreeing to try to dream together so they can keep playing when they have to sleep; Watterson's commentary (if I recall right), remarks on his cat: "We can see each other again in dreams."

[ourlordapollo]

And if I told you I finally came up with a fucking framing device for my Twinkfred von Karma origin story series thing

[hkpika07]

What moment in ttte made you shocked?

Idk man ttte isn't a very shocking show. It's incredibly down to earth, if a bit real with some of its stories. While yes some of the earlier episodes and especially the books can branch onto more serious and arguably darker content its nothing that would really shock me per se.

Nothing really shocks me, it just makes me think. Maybe be a bit sad or feel for the characters. But that's what any good story does.

[lizbetlovesbyler]

still thinking about this

tw ; talks about gun violence, racism and homophobia

I love everything our community has done and all the work that has gone into analysis, but you dont need a 300-something slide goodledoc to prove there's something going on here.

They talk about wills sexuality in the first episode, going so far as to use what is now a slur to describe him.

"oh but, lizbet, it was the 80s, it wasn't a slur then" I'm aware, but every film/show/book/play that is written in a different time period than the one it is set still has to be relevant to the audience it was made for. A lot of people think stranger things is set in the 80s to call back to classic thrillers like IT and ET, which it is...at its very basic, fundamental sketches. If that was all it is, the GA and younger watchers especially would not care for it as much as they do.

Anyone who ever read 'An Inspector Calls' in school should know what I mean. In 'An Inspector Calls', he author writes about the ignorance of an upper class 1912 family living in capitalist England through the context available to a 1947 audience. The audience knows the family faces two upcoming world wars, the titanic sinking and the great depression, this knowledge is used to highlight the ignorance of the family by believing England, and they too, are free from mistake or flaw. This dramatic irony screams out at you as you are watching/reading it. the typical audience doesn't scrutinise every detail, despite if those details are intentional.

"what makes stranger things relevant?" I hear you ask. "what context do we have that enhances the storytelling?"

Rising Russian-American tensions - Russians weren't actually shown as a threat in the show until season 3. Before then, it was pure paranoia from the US government in the show that fuelled their research and experiments, as the show is set during the cold war, it is relevant for the time period. The show reflects real life tensions as they've spiralled out of control due to the Russo-Ukrainian war through the actual introduction of Russian villains. (I think its common knowledge that the USSR were not actually opening interdimensional portals underneath 80s malls.)

The opening scene of season 4 showing the massacre of the lab children, children we'd seen innocently playing in the rainbow room. 010 we see taking a 'lesson' with Dr Brenner, the interaction is calm and the two joke. Moments later, every single one of those children is murdered. we hear sirens, screaming, and gunshots. The US in 2022 saw 51 school shootings. Gun laws in the US are a topic that a lot of people still do not want to address, but through stranger things, the writers force forward the reality of modern America in a way impossible to ignore. The reality that the leading cause of death in American children and teens is gun violence. The reality that an estimated 4.6 million american children live in a home where a gun is kept loaded and unlocked. The reality that, on average, 23 children are shot in the United States every single day. It's also the idea that it was the forced conformity of Henry Creel that pushed him towards this warped perception of humanity, allowing him to justify his actions. Reflecting the cases in which the shooter was a bullied student. Forced conformity being a core theme of the show, because it is relevant.

Constant reminders of a racial divide and aggression towards black characters, a theme that has persisted throughout the seasons much like it has persisted in real life.

Growing LGBT acceptance

That's all I can come up with at the moment, I'm really eager to hear other peoples ideas on this, but moving on.

Each of these themes can be traced back to the very first episode.

and then we have

If you think this is far fetched, consider how you'd write the first episode of a multi-seasonal period piece to introduce ideas and themes relevant to your audiences.

Consider how the recent legalisation of same-sex marriage in the US would impact your choices.

For the purpose of portraying Will as a reserved kid for which it is unusual for him to not have come home, it would have had the same effect for Joyce to stop at the fact he is made fun of at school for his clothes and such.

this line adds a layer to her concern, that Will was targeted and hate-crimed, she is trying to get the police involved. What does Jim do?

He expresses judgement.

There is no reason to include this other than to lay the groundwork for a theme that will come back later in the show.

A theme that did come back and slapped us all in the face.

A theme that didn't go away like a lot of people wanted it to/assumed it would.

Assumed it would go away because so many shows nowadays drop a label or a flag pin on a character and leave it at that. It's frankly humiliating how people stoop so low to kiss the feet of writers who reduce them down to a few stripes. (most prominent example to me is Sasha Waybright's pitiful bi sticker in the last 3 minutes of the final episode that got people screaming in excitement.)

If this were the Russian-American tensions theme, it would be unusual to drop it before the shows concluding season, its core to Elevens storyline and the interactions of the main cast with ignorant government officials.

People have grown accustomed to the representation of queer characters with labels, that representation is the co-existance of hetero and homo characters without ever needing to address the differences. But we are different, its the beauty of being different that is ignored. I feel quite a lot of representation nowadays fails to reflect the core of LGBT experiences - love.

It is the love that makes us who we are, not the labels.

This is what makes Stranger things worthy of recognition, the queer characters are introduced through their love for others, not a single label is needed, they actually make a point of not labelling a single sexuality, which a lot of people mistook for them "dancing around the topic".

You think, for even a moment - with a style of queer storytelling such as that, that Wills love is going to be used to fuel the heteronormative relationship?

Stranger things - the show about being different, about love conquering hate - wouldn't go so far as to let Mike return that love?

yeah, right.

(i would like to add that these themes are serious issues i'm grateful the writers address. this post isn't meant to prove byler endgame, but the impact a requited love between them would bring to audiences and why that is important, much like the other themes.

the only way to have the full impact is for this theme to persist another season and play a crucial role to the shows conclusion, hence why Mike and Will are likely centre stage, even if they dont "get together", their bond is crucial to the plot, whatever happens with them and rovickie will be unforgettable.)

[sixth-light]

both 1) just straight-up amused that ASOIAF and WoT fans are still starting internet fights twenty-five years down the line (this feud has legs) and 2) thinking about how it's actually in some ways not very interesting or useful to compare them as works because ASOIAF is in the act of being created still - yes yes probably the main series will never be finished, all the backstory stuff still counts - and WoT was completed over a decade ago.

by which I mean, WoT was written in response to '80s and '90s fantasy tropes and is best understood in that context, and ASOIAF and adjacent works started out in that context but have outlived it as a continuous act of creation right up until the present day. they're talking different languages now. even the WoT TV show, which is being currently created, is a re-imagining of a now-older completed work rather than part of an ongoing one. it's just such a different vibe and conversation.

[nadiajustbe]

When it comes to HMC trilogy, I take almost no criticism, as it just a wonderful written-story with alive and relatable characters. However, If I had to name a part I'd found reasonable to criticise and may critises myself, I'd say it's Lettie Hatter's arc.

Not because it was entirely bad, but because it could be so much better If it wasn't written in the 80s and had a different mindset attached to it. And because the way it starts and the way it progress has little to no connection to how it ends.

Because the whole thing of the Hatter sisters, all of them, was breaking social norms and expectations.

Sophie firmly believed that she would stay in the Hatter Shop for the rest of her life with the most boring existence possible — and yet she married the most chaotic, whiny and slither-outing wizard in all of Ingary, with whom everyday is a full-blown fantasy adventure.

Martha, as the youngest, was expected to have the above mentioned fantasy adventures, be a mighty witch, even a hero, maybe — but she decided to chose a happy, steady basic life with a husband and ten kids, and she didn't want to listen to anyone who said otherwise.

Lettie's arc, just as the whole stories of her sisters, were tied on what people wanted from her. She was the most beautiful out of all girls, If we believe Sophie's words, and people almost wished she would marry and find a life spouse, as she had one million proposals a day even before switching with Martha. But that wasn't what she wanted — I'm sure she would reject all of them as often as her sister did, because she wasn't a big fan of it, just as working in the bakery. Lettie wanted to be a witch, and she practically became one, switching with Martha, working with ms. Fairfax.

But while Sophie's arc of expecting to be plane and ordinary ended on being gifted and adventurous, Martha's arc of avoiding busy life ended on finding a person she loves and planning to build a big family, Lettie's arc of searching for greatest achievement and avoiding marriages ended on...a marriage.

A marriage that, as stated by herself — "Ben doesn't like people to know I'm a witch" — kinda disregards her initial want to show that she has intelligence outside of her beauty, the one that he can show and that she can use.

(This line has absolutely no context whatsoever and we can only guess why Ben wants so, because it's actually so out of his character, even all the bits that were described before. But nope, no context, no explanations. It may be because she was pregnant at the time, but, again nothing like this was ever said and it's a pretty lame excuse anyway. Magical mirrors in their house also do not obey Lettie, at all)

And, as much as I absolutely love Ben and as much as I absolutely love Lettie, I don't think pairing them was a good choice. Mostly because Lettie was seventeen (one year younger than Sophie) in the end of HMC when their "pairing" started, and Ben is described to be noticeably older that Howl in CITA, which brings us to the conclusion he's at least in his thirties. And that's...a bit uncomfortable of an age gap, especially If we take into the account they canonically had a kid about a year later. And also Ben was supposed to be her mentor.

...And If he stayed her mentor and nothing more, it would be actually great. Because I believe Lettie deserves the same development her sister had, to get was she initially wanted and what she was fighting for. To be an apprentice of the Royal Wizard, to be a powerful a well-known witch, to show the world who told her that she has to marry to succeed in life that she in fact, doesn't, to show all this guys that tried to propose to her that she didn't need them, at all. But definitely not a wife, or a mother.

Not because being a mother or/and a wife is a bad character development. It worked perfectly with Sophie, because it represents her chaotic happily ever after better than anything else, it worked with Martha because she wanted to had ten kids and marry. It's just not for Lettie's character in particular precisely because everything in her concept of "beatiful middle sister" showed that was she's supposed to be.

Because Mrs. Pentstemmon said Lettie awaits a great, good fate, that she'll be as powerful as the Witch of the Waste — and I want to see it. Because I didn't.

[crowleysgirl56]

Book Omens!

It’s finally happened. After reading him Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Chronicles of Narnia, Series of Unfortunate Events and most recently The Princess Bride, I have finally decided to read Good Omens to my son (for context, he’s 10).

If you’re wondering how far we’ve gotten in, we have reached the chapter Wednesday.

I’ve read it numerous times myself but the last time was years ago and it’s both wonderful and weird to read it again.

Things of note:

- it’s hilarious trying to explain stuff that was common in the 80’s and 90’s that my son has no context for (such as “Why is there a phone in the car?! You’re not allowed to talk whilst driving!”, or “What’s a cassette?”, or “What’s a punch card and why do you put it in a computer?”, and “what the heck is a fax machine?!”)

- there are a lot of jokes and references that are pretty much lost to time. Also clearly references to notable British personalities of the time that are no longer important.

- Aziraphale refers to Crowley as “My dear”, “my dear boy” and “dear boy” in quick succession whilst they’re drunk talking after the delivery of the antichrist. Why didn’t we have that more in the show?! (Manifesting season 3)

- it’s very obvious which parts were written by Pratchett and which parts were written by the other to be nameless author. (Terry 100% wrote all the footnotes)

- I completely forgot that the conversation between Crowley and Aziraphale in the Edinburgh minisode in season 2 is lifted almost directly from the book (image below). That was a bit of a surprise.

- it’s canon that angelic and occult beings go to the bathroom, as according to the footnote below (about Crowley sleeping through the majority of the 19th century), and I’m surprised this isn’t spoken about more. So fanfic writers, you can use this without argument now 😜

As far how my son is enjoying it, he likes it, and thinks it’s a bit ridiculous. I did have to tell him the ending ahead of time, that the Apocalypse is averted. Due to his autism he gets very anxious and he didn’t like the idea of Armageddon (it was the drunken conversation about everything ending that caused him some anxiety). So this way he can enjoy the book in the knowledge it turns out ok in the end.

I’ll continue to give updates as we go.

[ursacolossus]

Hi sorry I can’t stop thinking about how Charles grew up in -the AIDS crisis- and how that affected him and his view of sexuality. I initially thought ‘well he’s bisexual, obviously, he’s gotta know that’ but I really don’t think he does!!

My partner and I kept going ‘well what happened in the last 30 years?? Why didn’t they figure this out sooner?’ And I take that back. Those 30 years were the rest of the ‘80s, ‘90s and ‘00s, shit was -not- better for being queer. Like you might not have been burned at the stake, but people finding out could still ruin your life -very- easily. Discrimination laws were shit, they still kind of are in a good amount of states. I don’t know anything about discrimination laws in England at the time but they can’t have been better.

So I think Charles had clocked Edwin as queer very early on and was like ‘I’m not going to be like my father, or my ex-friends, I’m going to accept my friend’. And gave no thought to his own sexuality, most likely as an unconscious protection. (I’m fine with other people being gay, but -I- can’t be gay type of thing)

Also Punk subculture in England began in the ‘70s and obviously went into the ‘80s going very strong. Charles being from a lower-income family (still high enough income to send him to boarding school and having a basement, but we also have to consider that the ‘80s economy was -much- different and people could still afford a house and be poor at the same time) and dressing and speaking the way he does pinpoints him to a specific section of London that was seen as less desirable and punk culture and queer culture and poor culture -were and still are- a big-ass Venn diagram.

(Side note, Maurice by E.M. Forster was written in Edwin’s timeline. It’s about class disparity, being queer in an English boarding school and having a genuinely happy ending and it wasn’t published until -1971- because Forster did not want it published while he was still alive for obvious reasons)

(Other side note, Edwin was born just 5 years after the Oscar Wilde trials, so you -know- that scandal was burned into his brain from a young age)

But Charles knows that he loves Edwin in all other aspects, and I’d like to think that he’s recently come more to terms with his sexuality as a result of watching of the culture shift before his very eyes. Not thinking about it explicitly in the context of Edwin but like, understanding that queerness isn’t bad and -really- internalizing that.

We also don’t know if Charles has ever been in love before, and Edwin has had three -recent- experiences that have pushed him to this realization. Monty, the Cat King and Niko showing him her BL collection. Charles most recently was involved with a girl and he did -not- have several rendezvous with self-revelation. I think his response in Hell was extremely well-measured, all that considered. I just love this character and I have a lot of thoughts.

[kaithonks]

So I’ve had some Thoughts about From the DC Vault: Death in the Family: Robin Lives!

Warning: Spoilers 

My mistake with From the DC Vault: Death in the Family: Robin Lives! was thinking that the story would actually be about Robin. That was on me. I should have known better, but I let my excitement of finally getting more Jason Todd, Robin content get away from me. I set up poor expectations, and it’s not the comic’s fault for not meeting those expectations. 

Everything else is, though. 

I know I’m biased, and I am probably writing this too soon after having finished Robin Lives to really give myself time to think critically about the story. But, I also feel rather offended by the end and feel the need to strike while the iron is hot. Recently, I talked about fans and writers needing to have respect for each other, as they can’t exist without each other. I also mentioned having a respect for the history of the comic. On that, I don’t get the feeling that J. M. DeMatteis has much respect for the history that was Jason’s Robin run. Granted, this isn’t mainline canon. It is more of a ‘What if?’ So DeMatteis wasn’t “entrusted” the same way but, there was still a line of basic respect that feels very lacking. Now, DeMatteis has been writing since the 80s and has written a lot for both DC and Marvel so he is a part of comic history, but this doesn’t really translate into respect for characters. Or for fans.

Both Jason and Dick’s character have a rough time in this 4 issue series. While the series called “Robin Lives” mostly focuses on Bruce and his regret, by doing that it makes Jason and Dick more like props for Bruce’s guilt than actually characters with their own agency. Bruce outright denies Dick’s choice in becoming a Robin and even later Nightwing. In this guilt, Bruce totally takes away the fact that even as a child, Dick did choose this, and he chose it again when he became Nightwing. So Bruce’s guilt serves no one here. And this problem gets worst with the Robin Lives ending. Dick becoming Batman, is an incredibly weak ending to start. Because most of Dick’s history is him growing out of Robin and then trying to break out of Bruce’s shadow. Yes, Battle for the Cowl happens, but it’s more complex than Dick just becoming Batman. And it’s easy to see how pointless all of Bruce’s guilt was when he decided to leave his role as Batman, only for Dick to take it up again. It really feels like Dick is only a prop for Bruce’s journey. Dick is here for Bruce to feel guilty about, but then to also relieve him of the duty that also makes him feel guilty. 

And it is so much worse with Jason. This does sort of come back to me setting up poor expectations and the fact I thought this would be about Jason’s recover, but it was glossed over. We simply jump to Jason now being okay, which is a choice, if on the unbelievable side. What is worse, though, is how Bruce and the comic, makes Jason’s trauma about Bruce. Because yes, to an extent Bruce holds fault for the events leading up to Death in the Family. But he mainly holds fault in the form of negligence. He didn’t properly check out Sheila Haywood's background before for deciding she was a safe person to leave his son with. I am boiling down the issue of character interaction between Bruce and Jason (and outside influence that puts Jason’s last issues into context), but my point still stands that Bruce and Jason still made choices. For Jason’s part, he chose to trust Shelia to try, and save her. And in reality, Joker and Shelia hold the blame for Jason’s trauma. The fact Shelia was only briefly seen in a hallucination and “saving” Jason, again feels like DeMatteis has a lacking appreciation for the history of Jason’s Robin, and it’s context. Yes, Shelia saving Jason would be something Jason would want, but the event after this takes away everything that would make Jason still want Shelia’s affection in some way. With the ending and Jason becoming the Joker to Dick’s Batman, shows this. It ultimately feels like both Dick and Jason were used as stage props to re-establish some kind of status quo for a series that was only planned for only four issue. The run very well could have ended with the Joker’s death and everyone going to live happy lives but for some reason no. 

Now, one could see that as DeMatteis having a respect for Batman’s history as a whole and a path for a continuation. I would argue, though, that it shouldn’t come at the cost of other character’s agency. The leap in Jason’s “madness” is awkward, and when I say leap I mean a massive leap. This goes back to my problem with the story not focusing on Jason. We spend so much time in Bruce’s grief that when it is about Jason, everything goes sideways and ends up with being a “What the hell did that happen?” Especially since in the context of the story, Jason should have gotten a lot more support from Bruce, now retired, from Dick, now living back in Gotham, and from Dr. Sarawarti Dev, a psychologist. Having Jason still become the Joker after all this, not only feels like all of those people continued to fail him (especially as Bruce and Dr. Sara get married, which was a strange addition), but that he never really had any choice.  The story didn’t take the time to show us this, to show us how or where Jason became the Joker. He even denied becoming like the Joke in early issue 4. A point might be made that killing the Joker made Jason the new Joker, but a counterpoint Why? Jason already had the choice and decided? Why did he go back on that? Jason was Robin, Robin has the role of bringing hope, and being more compassionate, countering the fear Batman brings. We see Jason’s compassion before he died (or was injured in this case), when he still tried to save Shelia after she betrayed him. We see it in this comic with him still wanting her affection in his hallucination. So where did that compassion and care go?  

The answer? It didn’t go anywhere.  It was forgotten for the sake of a convoluted twist to make a reader gasp. Robin Lives spends its whole four issue run taking away the choice and agency of Robin. Robin does not live here. He becomes a puppet of the plot not to move outside of its designated story, he only can become Batman or the Joker. But never his own being. For anyone who’s ever enjoyed Robin, be it Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, Stephanie Brown, Damian Wayne or any other Robin, past or future, Robin Lives is an insult.

[arliedraws]

In the books, Sirius's devotion to Harry is of course very deep, but it never translates to something physical. He only shakes Harry's end when he leaves his bedside in book 4, and in book 5 there is something resembling a hug, like twice...? As a dog he stood up his hind legs and front paws on harry's shoulders and a half hug after Christmas. Idk it sort of drives me crazy, because in the movies Harry and Sirius are so affectionate! That first hug when Harry arrives in Grimmauld!! Gary and Dan had an amazing chemistry that other actors were jealous of, they mirrored the book characters, so it palpable on screen, the few scenes Gary is in at all at least.

So, what do you make of this? Do you in musing for art imagine a more affectionate relationship between Harry and Sirius? Maybe if Sirius survived the war? Molly's hug in book 4 was a poignant moment but imo that should have been a moment between Sirius and Harry. Sirius already says he expected something catastrophic to happen to Harry in the third task, that's what he stutters when Harry comes in with Dumblebore. So he is literally afraid of his godsons life and it still shows of course, Sirius staying at Harry's side was very beautifully written, like the devotion is clear, but I am foaming at the mouth for more affection between them in canon? Platonic, not shipping. So between the movies and the books Im just kinda torn what's better

It's more a rant than an ask, sorry lol, but if you have any input I'd he so stoked to read it. Not many peeps in the fandom even give Sirius and Harry any time of day, nvrmind even understand what they had (which also drives me kinda nuts but ok)

Ohhhh, anon, you’ve come to the right spot! Mostly because I love them. I would say that 80% of my fandom interest is just Sirius being a dad to Harry.

To your question, I don’t think one is better than the other. Each has their purpose. Let me share my thoughts:

1. I am soft for movie Sirius and Harry’s affectionate touching. However. The dynamics of their relationship were NOT mirrored from the books, which…is fine. Honestly, I just don’t think it was a priority for the filmmakers. This particular bit doesn’t bother me because the movies are not supposed to replace the source material—they are an interpretation. To me, watching the movies is like reading fic—fun to watch but not canon. Also, the filmmakers removed so much of their relationship in GoF that they HAD to make Sirius and Harry physically affectionate in order for movie audiences to see what losing Sirius would mean to Harry. Their complexity is completely unexplored in the films, and they had to do SOMETHING to get the audience to feel sad when Sirius died. This started in PoA when they really downplayed the context of their relationship. (Lol, see my rant on PoA. I really don’t like that movie hahahahaha.)

2. In the books, Harry and Sirius are not physically affectionate with each other despite their intense love for each other, and I think this is an effective way to show characterization. As I tell my students, this might have been intentional by the author, but it could have been an instinct that she followed (what feels right for the characters).

Here’s what I think: both are so terrified of losing the other that they won’t allow themselves to get too close, and, crucially, they both fear showing vulnerability. Touching someone and reaching out for a hug or comfort is an extremely vulnerable thing to do. If you reach out for a hug, you are showing your true feelings. To be rejected physically is sometimes more devastating than someone telling you to just “go away.” It’s a sign of trust to touch someone—you are trusting that they feel the same way about you, and you are trusting that they won’t pull away. Both Sirius and Harry understand rejection, and both avoid it. How do you avoid rejection? You distance yourself.

I’ll put the rest under a cut because I think this might get long…

Sirius and Harry, for all that they love each other, fall out of trusting each other by OotP. Part of this is trauma, but it is also miscommunication. Harry is worried that Sirius will do something stupid—either out of concern for Harry or because he wants to get out of number 12–but he’s worried he’ll lose Sirius. So by withholding affection (which I’m not sure if he knows how to give physically), Harry distances himself from Sirius which will, theoretically, keep Sirius safe (of course, it backfires). Sirius is…you know…going through stuff in OotP. He is already vulnerable—he perceives himself as being emasculated because he’s not allowed to leave his childhood home and he’s relegated to performing ‘uninteresting, domestic work’, and he must be inactive when he’s a man OF action.

When it comes to Goblet of Fire and the odd handshake… I think Sirius is reeeeeally holding back. Harry does NOT want him to go, and Sirius knows this. (Why DOES Dumbledore send him away? Literally anyone else could have “alerted the old crowd” and NOT the convicted murderer. This is clearly the author’s excuse to get Sirius away from Harry—and, I’ve spoken to this before, Sirius is too much of a miracle character—too smart, too loyal, too loving to support the story that the author wanted to tell.) Sirius, if he had stayed, would have been the emotional support that Harry needed. So if Sirius holds Harry, what if Harry doesn’t let go? What if Sirius himself can’t let go? A handshake will have to do.

So Sirius leaves Harry with that bizarre handshake. That Sirius leaves at all damages their relationship—it could have been repaired with time (if they’d been allowed time), but this moment makes Harry realize that he cannot rely on anyone, not even Sirius. This leaves Harry to be isolated in OotP, and it leaves him to feel like he cannot trust anyone. I’m not blaming Sirius for leaving, but I believe this action causes a rift between them that carries into the next book.

My point is, I HATE that they don’t touch but it is very important that they don’t, at least when it comes to the story that the author wanted to tell. I think it was the right move when we look at the story as a whole. Do I like it? NO! But it’s interesting, and it DOES feel right for them. Is it devastating? Yes!!!!!!!

TL;DR: I don’t think either interpretation is necessarily better than the other, but they both have their purpose. Both are effective!

Touch is…huge in HP. Consider Voldemort’s “I can touch him now” and causing Harry pain. Touch is a privilege, and to be touched without permission is a violation. Harry kills someone by touching them. He is only touched by his family when Dudley beats him up or he gets shoved in his cupboard.

Weirdly, one of my absolutely favorite moments when Sirius and Harry touch is in PoA when the Dementors are closing in on Sirius, Harry, and Hermione, and Harry, as he’s about to faint, reaches out to grab an unconscious Sirius by the arm, thinking something along the lines of “the dementors weren’t going to take him” and such. And this is about two seconds after Harry has accepted that Sirius is telling the truth! Harry physically tethers Sirius to him—this touch-starved teen reaches out to this man who is now everything to him, who is now his only real family, willing to risk death (or worse) to keep it. BUT THEY JUST MET!!!!! Devastating!!!

Also…another thought: the first time Sirius and Harry touch is the first time Sirius has been touched as a human in twelve years. And Harry is beating the absolute shit out of him…and then Sirius nearly strangles him…

Also, also, not to like…self-promote, but if you want some Sirius & Harry family feelings and a wee bit of affectionate touching, I wrote a one-shot where they talk about their feelings in OotP.

Anyway, this got longer than I thought. Thank you for the prompt!!

[royboyfanpage]

Hello, please don't take this the wrong way but when I first started getting into comics I really disliked Ollie for how he treated/reacted to Roy and the whole drug thing but many years and more experience later (I know the characters a bit better now and stopped reading bad takes on tumblr) I'm realising that theres a lot more nuance and apparently they've got a really close relationship these days?? So I was just wondering if you might be able to explain that to me because I'd love to get into more arrow stuff (honestly mostly fanficton because lbr comics are crazy confusing and expensive) but I'm struggling to shake the assumptions I made about Ollies character when I was younger

Hi anon! Thank you soooo much for this ask, I've been looking forward to answering it for hours and now I finally have the time. Ollie's one of my favourite fictional archers, and I adore talking about him at any opportunity because he is SUCH a nuanced character. So here's-

Why Oliver Queen Doesn't Suck

Mandatory disclaimer that this is my own opinions, other people may have different interpretations which is totally fine! Ollie's been around for over 80 years, there's a lot of content to read and a lot of conflicting characterisations, so other people may see him differently than me. Also disclaimer that much of this was written from memory. I fact-checked the date of Nixon's declaration of the War on Drugs and the Denny O'Neil quote, but the rest of this was from memory. Apologies for any innaccuracies, both for comics and context.

Now that that's out of the way, lets talk Snowbirds.

In order to discuss Snowbirds Don't Fly, one of the most important things to factor in is context. I understand it can be difficult to see through the historical lense of a time period in which the majority of people on this website, myself included, were not even born let alone reading comic books. However, it's still crucially vital to discuss what was going on in the real world at the time of its publication in order to engage in a rich discussion of the comic. Snowbirds was published the year that the War on Drugs officially began following Nixon's declaration of drugs as "public enemy number one" on June 17th 1971, just under two months before the release of Snowbirds part 1 in August of that year. At the time, drug addiction was very much seen as a moral failing, and the war on drugs focused heavily on the incarceration of drug users (particularly ones that the US Government wanted an excuse to lock away such as people of colour and pacifists against the war in Vietnam, but that's not relevant to Snowbirds.) While Snowbirds was absolutely not a perfect comic, it was created to show a more humanising side of addicts than the usual demonisation seen on the news. In the words of writer Denny O'Neil, “we chose Roy [...] to show that addiction was not limited to 'bad' or 'misguided' kids.” It was created to show that addiction was not a moral failing, and that anyone could fall into it due to circumstances, even someone we've already accepted as 'one of the good guys' for the past 30 years. Roy was used as the symbol of a good kid who made a bad mistake in order to humanise real young people who'd gone through similar circumstances. And where there's a kid, there's a parent, which is where Ollie came in.

Now, I very strongly believe that Ollie was not written to be the bad guy of Snowbirds. Not only was he also an established 'good guy', but he was a symbolic stand-in for much of America at that time, including the people who would be reading it. And, while Green Arrow is very much a character who brings with him a lot of strong political takes, villainising their readerbase would be a step too far. Ollie was a stand-in for the concerned and ill-informed parent, a character who's consumed all the anti-addict propaganda being spread at the time and internalised it. That's why the fact that it was his own ward struggling with addiction was so poignant to the story. Ollie was forced to re-evaluate his worldview after seeing someone who he knows isn't what the media says addicts are struggling with addiction. Snowbirds has such an interesting character arc for Ollie, seeing him struggle to combine the ideas of what he's heard and what he's actively seeing in his mind.

Now, the most infamous part of Snowbirds is, obviously, the slap. Full disclaimer, I am not saying that Ollie is in the right for that. He was 100% undeniably in the wrong for how he responded to Roy's addiction. However, I think a key component of comic books that people tend to ignore is the component of marketing. The writers wanted this comic to sell. It was a very important story for the time, and with the amount of comics being released it was crucial to them that people actually found the comic and read it, especially since it was one of the first comics released outside of the strict rules of the Comics Code. And what would catch readers' eyes more than seeing a superhero hitting his sidekick whilst said sidekick is surrounded by drugs? I'm not trying to discredit the panel, it was obviously a very significant part of the story, but there were external factors at play too.

A lot of the development of Roy and Ollie's relationship is seen in comics released post-Snowbirds, but even in the comic itself there's clear development, particularly at the end. Snowbirds Don't Fly is a character arc for Ollie of him adjusting his worldview in order to grow and better himself after recognising his own biases. And people tend to forget that Snowbirds ends with Roy hitting Ollie back, and what does Ollie do? He listens. He lets Roy get his frustrations out, and listens to Roy's perspective, and he's proud of him by the end of it, proud of the young man he is.

Okay, now that we've gotten Snowbirds out of the way, let's talk about-

Post-Snowbirds

There's a common misconception that Roy and Ollie having a close relationship is a recent development, which just isn't true. While it could've absolutely been explored in more detail, it's clear that Roy and Ollie reconciled post-Snowbirds. The earliest example that comes to mind is 1993's Green Arrow vol 2 #75, wherein Ollie and Roy refer to each other as father and son.

Keep in mind that this was written by Grell who is, at least in my opinion, one of the best references for Ollie. While they did have some issues in the later issues of the run preceding Ollie's death (the causes of the conflict I'm unsure of, they were on rocky terms during Connor's introduction but I don't know why, if anyone has context for that please let me know but that could've just been a choice Dixon made), it's clear to see that Snowbirds was not something that permenantly damaged their relationship. Ollie put in the effort following his actions, to better himself both as a father and as a person, and Roy recognised that and forgave him. Parent/child relationships are hard anyway, let alone under the circumstances Roy and Ollie are under as heroes, and the fact that Ollie actually recognised his own flaws is far more than many parents do.

If we go later, we can see Roy talking fondly about Ollie whilst Ollie was dead in Titans (1999), fondly recalling memories with him from his youth, as well as keeping a photograph of him on his wall.

While Roy does recognise that things with Ollie weren't always perfect, he does also acknowledge the good times between him and Ollie, and it's clear from the way he speaks that he holds a lot of love for him.

Later still, when Ollie returns from the dead, the duo reunite with fondness

One thing particularly that stands out to me is that, at this point, Ollie was missing many of his memories and Snowbirds was still fresh in his mind, with him bringing up Roy's addiction multiple times throughout Quiver as if it happened within at most the span of two years. Despite this, he still embraces Roy and treats him with love, making it clear that Ollie loved Roy even near to the Snowbirds era. There are more instances I could go into in Green Arrow (2001), but I'm running out of free time, so I'd highly recommend reading it :)

Aaaand later still, Ollie openly admits to having fucked up with Roy during Snowbirds.

He admits his failings, and demonstrates that he's got Roy's best interests at heart. He's not being selfish, he's letting Roy have his moment in his initiation as Red Arrow and staying in the background because he believes that's what's best for Roy. And-

He openly states that he loves Roy.

There's more in the current continuity I could reference, but I don't have the time to go through them right now and I'm definitely more familiar with content pre-52 (particularly 1994-2004 is the ten years I'd say I know the best), so hopefully this is enough.

Roy and Ollie's relationship isn't perfect. It has clear ups and downs, which is what makes them so interesting! Oliver Queen is a very loving, yet very flawed man, and to go either way of "evil abuser" or "perfect father" discredits who he is.

Anyway, your faves don't have to be unproblematic to love them. Ollie has a really compelling character arc during and after Snowbirds, and I like him a lot :)

For further reading, check out my masterlist on my pinned post, particularly Oliver Queen's B- Parenting, Snowbirds (1), and Snowbirds (2)

[abla-soso]

I have to say if the nettles being cut leak does happen I’m definitely dropping the show. And I have been very generous about the changes even enjoying some of them but nettles being cut isn’t even the final straw it’s the writers gleefully taking a flame thrower and burning the haystack. I literally had only one expectation from this show (well two) adapt Nettles and don’t make her his bastard daughter and the fact that writers cut nettles suggests they are catering to worst of the Targ Stans in the fandom. My only hope that if true Martin goes off on the writers like he did on his old blog when he talked about a frustrating experience he had in the 80s about his publisher trying to whitewash a the main character in his novella nightflyers on the cover a few years ago https://t.co/3BZfwRk70Y

I'm already done with the show (I haven't watched a full episode besides episode 2, and I don't plan to watch another full episode. I only watch the scenes of the characters I still care about and read about the rest of the context through fan accounts when nessasry).

But if they cut out Nettles, I will absolutely refuse to consider the show as a legitimate adaptation of Fire and Blood. It will just be a poorly written fan fic to me. The story of Fire and Blood is about the beginning of the fall of House Targaryen, and a part of that fall is destroying the false myth of Targaryen Exceptionalism. Nettles is extremely important for that. Besides, she's the most unique and interesting character in the whole story, so cutting her out is a dumb decision on its own.

I'm hearing some news about Martin wanting to be more involved in seasons 3 and 4. But at this point, I don't think I can even trust his judgment. He has long accepted that this show is a completely "separate canon" from his book (I'd say: a shitty fan fic from a Targ stan who doesn't understand Martin's themes and turned his story into a whole different one). I don't think he cares anymore about the show writers butchering his themes and characters. I think he just took the money and went: "eh, let them do what they want. the show is their story and not mine" 🙆‍♀️

[newtscamandersbf]

i feel like we need to talk about the skip westcott (marvel) thing because the way its handled is horrible and it feels like most people who talk or make content about it havent even read the issue.

so to start for those who dont know marvel in the 80s/90s made three free comic books with the National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse. Spider-Man and the Power Pack #1 deals with csa. to sum it up: spider-man saves a kid from being sa’d by his babysitter and, since the kid believed it was his own fault, opens up about his own experience with csa to make him understand that it wasnt his fault and convince him to tell his parents.

a lot of people seem to think that this comic was ‘unnecessary’ and while i’ll admit it wasnt the best written, it wasnt unnecessary. no assault was actually shown, either; peter stopped tony lewis (the kid) from being assaulted and when we’re shown peters memories it cuts from before the act to when peter musters up the courage to tell his aunt & uncle. the intent behind the comic was showing kids to be careful around those they dont know and be aware of others’ behaviors around them. to teach them that being sa’d isnt their fault, and it wont ruin them for life if they dont let it. look at peter: hes a hero, and he was mostly able to move on from what happened, with him only thinking about skip in a couple other issues from the 80s/90s (unrelated to power pack).

a lot of people, especially those who talk about it, just think of this issue as ‘peter gets sa’d’ and it genuinely seems to me like they dont bother to actually read it. for example, aside from many saying it was unnecessary, ive unfortunately seen many ‘au fics’ of what skip did to peter on ao3. which is … questionable at best but in my opinion its absolutely disgusting. ive even seen one where they were dating which .. hello ? guys ? peter was 9-12 while skip 15-19 when it happened. just the fact of making an au of it at all is so disrespectful. as someone who was sa’d myself its absolutely horrible, but hey, its ao3, what do we expect ? regardless, it feels to me like most people just know who skip westcott is and dont bother to read the actual issue or understand the context behind it.

ive also seen people say that skip shouldnt be brought up in canon again because his creator regretted making him. now, if they actually were able to read theyd know that the reason the author regrets the comic is because 1. of the backlash and 2. the fact it was poorly written. personally i think skip westcott can still be used in marvel comics in the same way as before; as part of peters backstory and to bring awareness to csa. however, it is something that should be handled delicately and its easy for such a comic to end up as poorly written as the original one.